I think I see the misunderstanding, and I'm failing at disambiguating it. Apologies.
Astner said that at least we can agree that religion makes life no less meaningful. My first rebuttal to this is that because nothing is intrinsically meaningful, and people create their own meaning, that his idea was flawed from the start. Saying that it can't be less meaningful with religion implies some intrinsic meaning-value to religion.
I went on to further assert that someone could derive meaning from a non-religious source that is stronger than meaning that they derive from a religious source. So if they replaced the non-religious meaning with a religious one, it's theoretically possible that it would be less meaningful. I admitted that it would be nearly impossible to prove, because we're dealing with intensely personal, subjective motivations, so there's no way to confirm this. But at best his statement was poorly worded, and at worst it could be disproven.
On an anecdotal level, I consider myself to be a case study on my point. The meaning I derive from non-religious reasons is at least as strong as what I had when I was a devout Catholic. I can't say for certain if it's stronger, because again we're dealing with something so subjective that it defies empirical analysis on almost a primal level. I don't even know how I'd go about measuring it. But suffice it to say, it's sufficiently strong to make my point.
I was in no way talking about external imposition of religion/meaning on a person. Better?
I've got some private messages from you in my inbox that say otherwise, unless you're counting time from the point where you last sent such to me, and I'm really wondering now how much of what you write in threads like this can be trusted as a result.
Presumably, God would fit into your category of "external things"?
IF that's so, what exactly is your proof of what you're saying?
Put as precisely as I am able to at this particular moment of time, what proof do you actually have that God is not able to imbue life with meaning for people?
More seriously, possible things to devote oneself to with as much fervor as religion is serving humanity as a whole, helping anyone one happens to come across, following a specific cause or person, and so on.
You reached a sociopathic level of obsession with trying to brand me a hypocrite. You are singlehandedly the reason I don't share personal information on this site. Yes, we had some heated PMs, and they are/were clearly a much different situation than any in this thread. I have no idea why you want to bring them up again in any context. I debated even responding to you here, because I never want to interact with you again.
Yes, I was under the impression that you meant something in the line of that. In the case you mention religion existing doesn't make a person with strong non-religious values feel less meaningful in anyway or form. That would still qualify under the original assessment of "religion not making life less meaningful" strictly speaking.
You could go even further and say that someone who had a bad experience with religion and then found meaning without any religious practice also got "better" thanks to his previous experience, which had an influence in his future dealings with life. Maybe that can be considered stretching to some degree (in a case to case basis it'll be very different I'd assume), but mostly it just muddles even more our ability to heavily deal with subjective controversial topics.
To bring it back around, my original rebuttal to his line was my chief one: that nothing has intrinsic meaning until we ascribe it. Religion as an abstract concept, or even a particular set of beliefs, has only as much meaning as its given by individuals.
So religion doesn't make life less meaningful. But it's an impotent statement, because you could sub in literally any other concept for "religion" and it still works in a technical sense, since meaning is derived intrinsically. At best, it's true in a technical sense but still horribly worded in a way that suggests a premise I disagree with.
I probably should have stopped there, because it's the crux of my argument. To rebut it further had me diving into theoretical, subjective musings after I had already made my central point. And that's where we got a bit mired.
Seriously, I'm not even sure that's a recommended debate strategy because you don't get to explore your ideas and refine them into better ones.
Is it a big misnomer to say one can lead a meaningful life? Because as far as I can tell we care about the illusion of meaning much more than actual meaning or reasoning behind it. To lead a meaningful life is probably closer to have a gut feeling of rightfulness (I'm just making up a word for it here), than actually searching for a definition to it. All this while technically allowing that fulfillment comes from gathering knowledge.
Most of my posting here is to explore ideas. So you make an interesting point about simply talking being a good thing, even if that talking is with something less than certainty.
You're probably right about the 'illusion of meaning' to an extent, though. There are a lot of studies that suggest religious concepts came about as an evolutionary byproduct, serving their function by removing our cognitive dissonance about various topics. So, for example, our primitive ancestors couldn't hunt and gather if they were pondering existential questions about the meaningfulness of their lives. Religious concepts filled that void, and allowed them to go on with the business of surviving and procreating.
And, if we stopped and observed ourselves, we'd likely find that on a day to day basis, we're not actively pondering these things. We just sort of have a vague sense of purpose as we go about our routines. Religious or not, the idea of "meaning" is something of a placeholder so that we can go on with our lives. The sort of introspection that leads us to actively consider it at all times is often cause of depression or mid-life crises.
I ignored such studies existed, but that makes quite a lot of sense. If you remember where you heard of those please share, I'll try to be less lazy later and look around for them
Well, I usually get crucified (joke intended) for linking people to books/authors instead of links they can read online. But a great start is Dan Dennett's "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon"
It's certainly a field in need of additional study, but Dennett does a good job of backing his thesis with the empirical evidence we have, while pointing out what still needs investigation. If you're curious but not THAT curious, I'm sure there exist ample synopses online.
{edit} no idea why the link's broken. I can't fix it. It's just the Wiki, though. A Google search will send you there.
I'd level the same question at you. As a card-carrying atheist, I can tell you that KMC represents about 99% of the time my atheism actually means much to my life. And my hatred for others is (nearly) nonexistent. I'm only human, but I find that attempting understanding is better than hatred, even when I vehemently disagree with someone.
As ever, though, the line between baiting/trolling and sincerity is difficult to discern with you. I don't actually think you believe your own words here. Or wouldn't if you applied a modicum of scrutiny to them.
I was exaggerating, but honestly, for a lot of athiests, not being religious is the main theme in their lives. Plus their condescension towards the faithful....mostly Christians.
__________________ There's a man goin' 'round takin' names.
An' he decides who to free and who to blame.
Everybody won't be treated all the same.
There'll be a golden ladder reaching down.
When the man comes around.
KMC Community Forums
Oct 12th, 2015 03:41 AM
